8. Filed documents: Claim and Verified Answer. In this action,Claimant
alleges, among other things, that over his objections, he was given a
tuberculosis screening test at Auburn Correctional Facility ("Auburn") on August
5, 2002. He alleges that, despite his notice to Defendant that he had adverse
reactions to such tests, the test was given and he did indeed suffer severe
adverse reactions. These allegedly included: cramps, nausea, disturbances in
his vision, pain in his chest, headaches and sleeplessness. With each of his
current motions, Claimant seeks partial summary judgment on the issue of
liability, asserting that there is no question of fact as to Defendant's
negligence and the injuries he suffered as a result.

Defendant opposes Claimant's motion, arguing that there is a question of fact
as to whether or not Claimant gave prior notice to Defendant of his adverse
reactions to such screening tests, and whether or not Defendant's negligence was
the proximate cause of Claimant's alleged injuries. In support of this
assertion, Defendant has submitted the affidavit of Registered Nurse Susan
Lennox, which indicates that the Claimant's medical records fail to indicate
that Claimant gave such prior notice to any Auburn medical personnel.

In any application for summary judgment, the moving party bears a heavy burden
of establishing that he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,
tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues
of fact (Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med.
Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853). Summary judgment is a drastic remedy which
deprives a party of its day in court and should not be granted where there is
any doubt as to the existence of a material issue of fact (Moskowitz v
Garlock, 23 AD2d 943; Epstein v Scally, 99 AD2d 713). Claimant has
failed to meet this burden. I find that questions of fact exist as to whether
Claimant gave prior notice of his adverse reaction to the tuberculosis screening
test, as well as whether Defendant's alleged negligence (giving Claimant the
screening test) was the proximate cause of Claimant's alleged injuries.